'Man of Steel': Lots of flash but no bang

Zack Snyder is a competent filmmaker who knows how to make bombastic, eye-popping action movies. But has he made a film that is actually good?

Brad Avery

Zack Snyder is a competent filmmaker who knows how to make bombastic, eye-popping action movies. But has he made a film that is actually good?

Most of his works to date have been adaptations, including "Dawn of the Dead," "300," and "Watchmen." While Snyder does a decent job of retelling these stories, he seems unable to add anything of merit to them. "Watchmen" in particular skirts by on the strength of its source material while anything new is either of no consequence or actively detrimental to the story.

Snyder’s latest, "Man of Steel," is no different. Through its first half the movie seems like it may be an improvement for him, but it falls to pieces in the second half - which just makes this effort hurt all the worse.

Rather than continue where "Superman Returns" left off, "Man of Steel" is a reboot, once again telling a story as deeply ingrained in the cultural unconscious as "Cinderella."

After the movie recounts Superman’s origin story (where he is sent to Earth as a child and adopted by a kindly Kansan couple who teach him to hone and use his super powers for good), the evil General Zod (Michael Shannon) comes to Earth in order to use the planet to rebuild his now destroyed home world of Krypton.

At first there seem to be some liberties being taken with the characters - Superman (Henry Cavill) is a social outsider with pent up rage who decides to become a hero rather than remain an outcast. Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is a hard-nosed investigative reporter with actual agency, refusing to just be a love-interest. And even General Zod has reasons for his actions beyond just being evil, he believes what he is doing is for the greater good of his people.

The problem is that all of this is thrown out the window once the fighting begins.

Action scenes are normally what Zack Snyder excels at, but there is just way too much of it here. Once the fighting begins it never lets up until the end credits. It’s fun at first, but after awhile action-fatigue sets in and it just becomes boring. It’s kind of the same idea as eating 10 boxes of marshmallow Peeps in a single sitting – it starts off great, but it’s not long before you’re clutching your stomach, huddled over in nausea and regret.

And what’s more nauseating is the amount that this film evokes 9/11. Much of the combat takes places within the city of Metropolis, a city that might as well have ceased to exist by the end of this movie. At one point Superman rams Zod through the support beams of a skyscraper, causing it to collapse, sending the citizens on the street running in fear.

This proceeds to happen again, and again, and again. And I can’t shake the realization that there would realistically be thousands of people in each one of those buildings. There is no way at least 50 percent of the population of Metropolis isn’t dead.

As for Lois Lane, who starts off as a strong-willed, independent woman – a character we don’t see nearly enough in mainstream films, she winds up just being another damsel in distress.

She ceases to be an actual character with personality and goals and winds up as just another love interest fawning over Superman.

"Man of Steel" is an odd experience. While watching it I was entertained, if not waiting for it to just wrap up after the fortieth minute of punching. But now I’m struggling to really recall anything particularly good about it.

The cinematography has that ugly glossy covering typical of Zach Snyder that makes me feel like I’m watching a baseball card. The acting is passable at best and eye-rollingly corny at worst (Michael Shannon being the primary exception, who delivers as strong a performance as the material will allow him).

It killed the time but I can’t think of anything in it that makes me want to go see it again. It’s a whole lot of flash, with no bang.